BuzzerBeater Forums

, or some other mechanism that increases effective purchasing power or demand.

Otherwise there is a mathematical limit to what managers can pay.

Imagine that under the old system ten competitive teams can collectively bring $200M of available purchasing power into a market segment.

If, after several seasons of tighter taxation and lower cash ceilings, those same teams can collectively bring only $120M, you cannot simply expect the same group of assets to become permanently more expensive unless something else has changed.

The money to pay those prices has to come from somewhere.

And this is why I think the short-term market reaction is being confused with the long-term economic effect.

Yes, forcing managers to spend their accumulated money can inflate the TL right now.

But after that accumulated stock of money is gone, permanently restricting the amount managers can accumulate is fundamentally deflationary unless another part of the economy offsets it.

So if the long-term goal is genuinely to make players more valuable and encourage training because selling players should generate higher returns, then I think the entire money-flow model has to be considered together.

You cannot look only at the hoarding tax.

Income creation, salaries, training costs, infrastructure costs, transfer taxes, cash ceilings, roster requirements and the supply of trained players are all parts of the same economy.

Changing one of the biggest variables in that system while expecting the opposite long-term price effect is not really a BuzzerBeater question.

It is Economics 101.

Drop the axe.

The more I read the arguments for postponement, the less sympathy I have for teams sitting on $25M+ in their banks. There will, theoretically, be a massive influx of cash into the market from teams that currently have more than $25M. Nobody should be surprised if that creates some short-term inflation in player prices on the TL.

But the spending won’t stop there. That money will eventually end up in the banks of other managers, who will themselves have an incentive to spend it ---- > most likely on the TL again. Over time, prices will stabilize under the new system.

And if some teams don't spend their money because they are inactive or hibernating, and instead lose it through taxation, I don't see how that negatively affects transfer prices. After the change, those teams will eventually drop down to $15M, which is effectively just as relevant to the market as their $25M was before the change.

So I really don't see the need to postpone this any further. Let the system do what it's supposed to do.

Many of these issues could have been solved with some simple changes a long time ago.

1) The ability to train players past Legendary (20) should never have been allowed. Hard capping at 20 would have forced managers to focus on training other skills and avoided these unbalanced monsters that require farm teams focused only on training, which in turn leads to hording money and skill inflation all across the board.

2) The nature of the game with individual country pyramids created the pieces for the unbalance system we have now from the very start. When there were 50,00 users, sure it wasn't a problem. However, it is not a coincidence that the hording and financial issues started cropping up when the user base declined and reduced the jeopardy or relegation and financial pain in some pyramids to point of irrelevance. Frankly, there should have been more consolidation and far fewer league pyramids much, much earlier.

This also included the creation of Utopia by the way. Aside from being a way for the game owners to generate more cash flow for the game (not a bad thing), it was a big catalyst that put many of the games problems into overdrive.

3) The training system has been broken from the start. It's original design is far too limited, both in number of trainees and being limited to one primary skill at a time. This type of system was always going to be prone to failure under circumstances that eventually occurred. Again, when there were 40,000-50,000 users, it worked because there were more players being trained. However, as the user base fell, instead of fixing the training system accordingly, the powers that be resorted to cheap fixes that made thing worse.

Take your pick of extra staff (Youth Trainers in particular), new facilities (Gym, Training Court), or bumping starting skills on draftees, all of them have contributed to the standardized training patterns (1v1, OD, ID, etc.), unbalanced builds, the proliferation of 150+ TSP monsters, and far, far, far too many individual skills over 20.

Managers should have had the ability to train multiple players in different skills at the same time from the start. That would have encouraged creativity in training, allowed the ability to create more skilled players to use and sell, and, most crucially, allowed manager to rebuild without tanking. That would have shown who truly has skill instead of who can horde the most money or build the biggest trainer farm.

Hi Marin,

Since i want to believe we are still in some sort of democracy, I feel something needs to be regarding your post.

We all know the sinews of war is money. It always will be, whatever rules you will decide. Money buys you better rookies, better assistants, better players, bigger arenas, more investments. Because that is what ultimately makes you win games, titles and trophies. Explain to me, which part of this is unsportsmanlike? Are you not saving money in real life for your kids to go to college, for holidays, for a new car? Is this unfair too? Should we blame "such behaviour" too? Not that i compare any BB managers to these all-time greats, but should the Pogacars, the Federers, the Jordans, the Messis be penalised because they are "ruining the fun for everyone else involved"?

Those managers you are targeting did not steal a penny they saved. All of them started poor, all of them happen to have found a totally legal way to win. You sound like those managers are thugs to you. You could at least have some respect for their capacity to stick around, to analyse the game and play along with the slowness of building up, instead of taking a sudden U-turn to hastily erase 10 years of inaction. Some of them have been playing for 15 years, sometimes more. They have been playing along, sometimes through dark periods, while the game was slowly sinking. But they did stick around. Is this how they are rewarded? By being called unsportsmanlike? Let me tell you, managers should not be held responsible and penalised for whatever poor decisions from the past.

About "Do you want the game to be better or not? Do you want it to get better as fast as possible or not? Should we allow for unsportsmanlike behavior or not?" / "we will no longer tolerate such strategies."

I'm sorry Marin but that is populist rhetoric, it is too easy to talk like that. It is not because some might want the game to be better/faster that you should disrespect dozens/hundreds of managers who have been playing fair and square and have been patiently working their ass off to try and win it all. Before better and faster, i want the game owners to respect the managers and the time and effort they are putting in.

The whole point is not about refusing new rules. Everyone here knows and agrees that the game must evolve, and maybe this rule will improve the game. Or maybe not, it is not up to me to master that part. The point is, you could listen to the one request many managers suggest: a smooth transition, by thresholds, instead of screwing them over from one day to the next and treat them like mafiosi. They are guilty of nothing, they are no better or worse human beings than the others, and certainly not worse BB managers that the others.

A wise man changes his mind sometimes, a fool never.
Thank you for your time.

I started rebuilding my team back in Season 63. After that, I spent several seasons developing young players, accumulating finances, and planning for the long term. I deliberately built a strategy for around 10 seasons (more than two years) in order to eventually return to the top and compete for championships.

And now it turns out that all those 10 seasons of work, investment, and strategic planning are essentially going to be wiped out in just one season?

I agree that the current threshold may need to be reduced. But doing it so drastically and all at once is unfair to those who have spent years building their teams around the existing rules.

Changing the rules is understandable, but the interests of those who have already invested years in a long-term strategy should also be taken into account. It would be much more reasonable to lower the threshold gradually, giving managers time to adapt, rather than devaluing the results of years of work.

If the goal is to make the game more competitive and balanced, I believe a much better solution would be to introduce a salary cap.

This would encourage managers to focus on building a strong and well-balanced roster with quality players on reasonable salaries, rather than simply accumulating the highest-paid “steroid monsters.”

That way, competition would be determined more by the quality of players, smart roster management, and tactical decisions — not by which manager has the biggest budget and can simply afford to pay more.

It would make the game more strategic and rewarding for managers who plan ahead and build their teams wisely.

Hy.

I have been playing this game for over 15 years. I wasn't always very committed or cared too much, but casual playing for very long period of time proved me one thing: Being mediocre in this game is most pointless position to be, results vise. That is why managers either compete or tank, and there is no objective reasons to stay in between.

In past i would have very little money, refused to tank, invested some money into drafting but in 99% cases never got desired players. Matter of fact, in my +15 years of playing, due avoiding to tank, i only drafted i think one player with potential over 10. And that player also was complete crap with terrible starting skillset.
Trying to stay competitive in past meant that i would spend very few money i got trying to upgrade roster, while still not being good enough to be promoted, or after being promoted in 1st division, having no money to buy actual players to compete with best players.
Such desire to be competitive, while having no money as safe net, got me demoted to second division with like 300K in bank, with group of 34 years old players that were worth nothing.


Over last several years i started to pay attention more what works and what does not work, and what you call "unsportmanlike" behavior in reality is just players being proactive, smart and planning their future. There is no "cheating", players who now have $15-20M on their bank account didn't steal that money. They are very patient and play long game.

Planning rebuild for ground up is already massive pain in a** and going further with making already ineffective training even less effective is complete nonsense move.

Root issue with this game boils down to a fact that tanking isn't penalized (and that's on you and people who made system), second biggest issue is limited amount of training slots that leads into having very few elite players available and price they cost is only affordable for 1st division players.
Also, due their bloated salary most of players who actually spend real life years developing players, are forced to sell their beloved prospects because they no longer can afford them (while staying competitive due salary restrictions ). And this is why players who horded $25M on their bank account take full advantage of hording money. They can afford them, while losing manager, after trading favorite players often lose interest in game due knowing new cycle will take 3 freaking years.


As long as draft order is set backward from seeding, tanking will be a thing.
As long as there is no serious financial penalty for tanking, teams will tank because in 1st division tanking can them even $500K a week.
As long as training is super slow process and takes ages with limited amount of players on specific positions that can be trained, retooling own team around own draftees while staying competitive will be impossible.

And lastly, biggest issue among them all, in this game, is terrible game engine, that now, instead of fixing it, has you "nerfing" 3-2 zone. if game actually can run more like actual, modern basketball, where centers can shoot and where power forwards are no longer stiff woods for rebounding, it would solve your shotblocking issue + 3-2 zone + 2 Cs with +20 SB meta scheme.
This is why nobody is trying to be creative. Engine simply punishes any sort of creativity. You can in theory train your C into 19 JS & 14 JR and that should be "anti 3-2 zone" where, no matter what offense you set, your C will end up with 50 -threes-taken- a season-at most and in all of them it won't be C to guard him, but due terrible implementation of 3-2 zone, almost all his 3s will be contested by - guards?

Please discuss it further. The game rules shouldn’t be changed so drastically in just one season.